At Sat, 8 Dec 2012 22:55:54 +0000, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > I could actually put the CHK key on a business-card. > > You could in principle, but it's a rather long string. Maybe a KSK, although > security issues? Or maybe one of the "short references" proposals, although > they tend to depend on fixed IP addresses. "Short invites" may be possible > too...
I do not care too much abouot that length. I once needed over 1h to fix lineeak and encoding issues for the ref. In that time we could have typed the CHK 20 times or so. Also that string is much easier to send by mail (believe me there, please, it is. I speak from experience...). > > Also: Invitations. A page where I can generate an invitation bundle with > > one > > click: > > Invites only work if you are port forwarded. Bundles I agree are a good idea, > and should be readable by the node if it's already installed, executable > otherwise. Well, then we could gray them out if not port forwarded and ask the user to add proper port forwarding before inviting others. Or at least warn, that the bundle will only work for opennet without port forwaring. Or better: That without port-forwarding it wil require manual verification. That is something people already know. > > invitation.zip/ > > freenet_windows.exe > > freenet_macosx.app > > freenet_gnulinux.sh > > one_time_token.txt > > Customised settings too e.g. bookmarks. Bookmarks could be problematic, I think. People may not want to share all their bookmarks with their friends. I would leave them out at first and maybe later offer selection of bookmarks to send (a checkbox for each bookmark). The friends might be able to eavesdrop to some degree, but trusting friends to not spy on you is much easier that trusting them to not be offended by stuff you do. Just think about sharing links to anti-state sites with a socialist friend - or socialist pro-state sites with an agorian friend. You share that you do not want spying. That is enough to give you a common base with which not passing on the bookmarks is equivalent to keeping them private. > FOAF connections so you don't have to wait for me and are less > dependant on me being port forwarded. That is a nice idea, yes. Are these already prepared or do they need other changes? In the first case, that would be an easy win. In the second I think it could be delayed for later improvements of the bundles. > > I think we had that plan for over 5 years… > > Yup. Any chance to get it realized soon? I think it is THE major missing feature for being able to grow in a grassroots way. Best wishes, Arne _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
